Template talk:Weapon Infobox
Okay. Looks like my little plan worked. But only so far. Three problems with the set-up, as-is: 1) Renaming. "Category:Blaster Pistols" has to become "Category:Blaster pistols". How unfortunate. 2) Usage. Unless the editor enters "Blaster Pistol" for "type" (or some case-variation of that), it won't be entered into "Category:Blaster pistols" - it'll create a new category for it to go into. If they don't enter anything, it doesn't get added to anything. 3) Sub-categories. As the type is "Blaster Pistol", it gets entered into only "Blaster pistols" - not "Blaster weapons", as most of our blaster pistols are. So three problems. Feel free to revert Jagtai's AT-1 Blaster Pistol if you want to cancel the use of the template. It was just the first one listed under "Blaster Pistols". To take care of these problems, we could have a template for each kind of weapon - and alterations would be made to the category inclusion for each. We could still use my code for Blaster Weapons, and just add all Blaster template uses to Blaster Weapons, but the other code wouldn't be an issue (after all, who's going to enter "Melee Weapon" for the type of a melee weapon?). --Archangel 06:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC) *Aside from those three problems, looks good. Now, I might have a solution for Problem 1. That is to say, if I tinker around with the code enough, now that my brain is crammed with crap on Signed Integer Representation, I might be able to get it to use the first letter of each word as upper case. Can't promise anything, though. Problem 2 could only be solved with Problem 3. Problem 3 poses as a nuicance, 'cause then we have several different infoboxes for several different weapon types. This could prove to be quite inefficient. I mean, yeah, we have... what... half a dozen conflicts and event infoboxes, but keep in mind that each serves a purpose the other cannot fill. And character/government infoboxes are distinct in that people don't want to have to guess what the affiliation is right off the top of their heads. So... yeah... dunno. I'll let the others decide if they want multiple infoboxes for weapons. In the meanwhile, if I have the time (damned midterm), I'll try to get something stormed up later today (it being 1 am at the time of this posting). Can't guarantee anything will work, though.... --Cadden Blackthorne 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC) *Also, I should point out that the uppercase/lowercase bit isn't necessary. Wiki articles take the first letter of the article and automatically uppercase it. Just thought I'd throw that in. Regardless, I still might have a workaround, but I'm too tired to care right now. --Cadden Blackthorne 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC) **Well, I guess ucfirst isn't necessary, but I figured the lc was, because if one person entered "Blaster Pistol" for type and another person entered "Blaster pistol", they'd end up in two different categories. But yeah, having seven or more different infoboxes that do precisely the same thing seems quite inefficient, if there were some way to get around that. But I can't think of one. --Archangel 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC) ***Hmm. So far, my theory has been unfounded. However, there may yet still be hope! As much as I hate to say it, we could just nix the auto-category method all-together, and have people just add the article to the respected category itself. It's not perfect, but it would work.... --Cadden Blackthorne 20:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC) ****I'm pretty sure the code we need to make all the words capatilized is "ucwords", seeing as wiki is based in PHP, but I haven't been able to get the coding to work in the template just yet. If someone else can, more power to you. --Halomek 02:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Okay... so, in theory, this whole "ucwords:" business should work. And there's no reason why it shouldn't. Except that it, evidently, is not supported by this version of metaWiki. This article explains what we can and cannot currently do with Wikia formatting. Guess we can chalk it up to bad luck. --Cadden Blackthorne 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Template subcategories? Just wondering if there would be any great problem with creating some subcategories for weapons like their are for vehicles and ships. Personally, when I start working on a description of a weapon, I make it as detailed as I can manage cause it makes it easier for me to write it into a story. My personal template that I work with is based heavily on the way the old MMA website had it's weapons listed. When I was putting up the entrys I did last night, I found the current template kinda limiting. Now I'm wondering if there could be temps for ranged weapons (blaster and projectile), thrown, melee, and support (launchers and such). I know it's a minor thing, but I just prefer to be detailed with the things I come up with. Coal 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) *The way the template is set up is to where it should be able to conform with all varieties of weaponry. I was looking at Wookieepedia's method when I was inputting the template, and they use one for all their weapons. If it becomes a pressing, critical need, we might end up doing something about it to diversify it further, but in my opinion, the way it's structured now should easily cover any weapon. If not, then info can always be added in. But, with all the stuff we have on this template, I'm not too hot on the idea of making multiple styles. I'll let the other three voice their opinions, though. I'm fine with going with the flow on this one, so long as I don't do the work. :P --Cadden Blackthorne 02:46, 14 February 2008 (EST) *I don't care either way. --Jagtai 10:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC) **Just tell us what you want added, Coal. In this case, I think one infobox should be able to handle everything. --Halomek 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Weapon Autocategories Even though I dislike the fact that this version of wiki won't let us use code to capitalize the first letter of every word for the autocategories, I'm voting that we go ahead and use them - at least until such time as we're able to make the upper cases work. This means existing categories like Blaster Pistols would be seen as Blaster pistols instead. What Arch has come up with is quite slick and it's a shame not to use it to its full potential because Wikia doesn't support the code we need. The way I see it, weapons will simply be the anomaly to our wiki; an ongoing experiment until such time as we can perfect it. If we ever get the capability to make it work, it'll be a simple matter to change things over once everything has been infoboxed. Right now though, I think the priority needs to be to get all these entries updated and properly categorized. Our own preferences can wait until later. --Halomek 02:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC) *I don't mind either way. I just didn't want something to happen without all of us being in agreement upon how we're going approach it. If we're only to use weapons as the "anomaly", as you put it, in our naming convention, then that's a nice, happy medium to our problem. I really don't like the fact that there's no way around this problem of ours. I also suggest that we add another part to this template for the variety of the weapon (as opposed to the type). My reason for this is because articles like Soulblade will be out of place if we don't have a "category" and a "subcategory" for articles like that. (Meaning, the category "Melee weapons" and the sub-category of "Sith-alchemied".) I think I put that correctly. --Cadden Blackthorne 14:51, 16 February 2008 (EST) **I am with Halomek on this one. As for the variety thing - I don't care :P Jagtai 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)